Now That We're Going to Have an Open Seat...Conyers Resigns

**3WC** · December-08-17, 06:47 PM

ABetterDetroit: Thanks for posting the link to the New Yorker article.

According to the article, the manager of the mall claimed there is a banned list but there's no evidence Moore was ever on it.

A police officer was quoted as claiming Moore was banned from the mall, but declined to comment when contacted by the New Yorker.

)Oh, Swingline, the woman "readily admitted" she wrote in part of the quote she attributed to Moore, AFTER she was caught in the lie. )

Every other allegation in the article regarding the banning was hearsay, often triple hearsay, and not one statement would be admissible in a court of law. Better read the article carefully and with comprehension.

**Wesley Mouch** · December-09-17, 12:43 PM

Its all a witch hunt. Look, Sen. Franken shouldn't have been run out of office. He's was a comedian. We expect our comedians to say and do things that are on and over the edge. Tell me John Belushi was a gentleman. I don't want politically-correct comedians. Please no. Get out there and grab! But me? I liked Kathy Griffin's head joke. [[Although it clearly crossed the line. That's what I liked. And I'm sure she's grabbed and joked about men once or twice too.)

We all gotta lighten up.

I don't have a scorecard, but Harvey clearly was misbehaving. Worst of the bunch. I'm not sure he really ever used force. If he did, hang 'im. Otherwise, my libertarian ass says 'If Harvey asks, and you sleep with him', that's OK with me. You could've said no, and posted the audio to your facebook. But no, [[many) said ok Harvey, but I want 'special guest' billing with that juicy role in your movie about abused women.

**gvidas** · December-09-17, 09:12 PM

the fact that an allegation wouldn't hold up in a court of law doesn't disqualify it for me, because that's kind of the problem -- our criminal legal system is really really really bad at investigating, prosecuting, and convicting rapes and sexual assaults. Case in point, our untested rape kit backlog.

furthermore, I think this is a topic where internet armchair commenters are always gonna miss the mark. My definition of abuse is someone using the power they have over someone to harm that person for their own benefit. It's a pretty broad definition, intentionally so, and the crux of it is the harm done. If a person says they are harmed, why not believe them? Why not give them their due process? most false rape/SA allegations are made by third parties. e.g. a parent saying their child was raped.

finally, and this is a dead horse, but I'm gonna whack it once -- a 'witch hunt' was a group of people coming together to kill women for their independence or promiscuity or nonconformity. it was never a group of women getting together to kill the men who wielded power of them. when that has happened in this country it is generally just called 'natural causes' or 'heart attacks' or 'unexplained deaths.'

**Hypestyles** · December-09-17, 09:42 PM

in the meanwhile. since the seat won't be filled-- what happens to the current staff? what happens with constituent concerns?

**Cincinnati_Kid** · December-18-17, 01:12 AM

Yet that Orange P.O.S in the WH, has been accused of the same things by 8 women just as Franken and Conyers, and it's swept under the rug. SMDH. His _ss needs to resign too. He needs to be investigated like everyone else.

**Wesley Mouch** · December-18-17, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cincinnati_Kid

Yet that Orange P.O.S in the WH, has been accused of the same things by 8 women just as Franken and Conyers, and it's swept under the rug. SMDH. His _ss needs to resign too. He needs to be investigated like everyone else.

This conservative [[well, really libertarian) says it was wrong to hound Franken out of office. It was wrong to chase Conyers out. And it would be wrong to pursue President Trump.

It seems to me that Conyers and Franken were mostly pushed out by his own party -- in the interest of proving their purity -- in the interest of being able to get Trump later. Does anyone really think Franken's comedic Indiscretions disqualify him?

On the other hand, does anyone really think that the 49% [[and legally necessary quantity of the) public who voted for Trump didn't know he was womanizer? They did. And yet they [[we) voted for him because he has other qualities that we value more. To apply your standards of harassment and remove him from office would be to usurp my vote.

**aj3647** · December-18-17, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

On the other hand, does anyone really think that the 49% [[and legally necessary quantity of the) public who voted for Trump didn't know he was womanizer? They did. And yet they [[we) voted for him because he has other qualities that we value more. To apply your standards of harassment and remove him from office would be to usurp my vote.

It was actually 46%, not 49%.

I'm just curious what, if anything would be a deal-breaker for you. Is there anything Trump could have said or done that would have made you not vote for him? Trump once said he could shoot someone to death in the middle of the street and his supporters would still love him and he was right. I don't think there is anything this man could do that people like you wouldn't rationalize away.

Hypothetical: Trump calls a black person the n-word tomorrow, do you still support him?

**archfan** · December-19-17, 03:59 AM

Originally Posted by aj3647

Hypothetical: Trump calls a black person the n-word tomorrow, do you still support him?

But, but, there are all those other qualities like, like... sorry, drawing a blank.

**gnome** · December-19-17, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

ABetterDetroit: Thanks for posting the link to the New Yorker article.

According to the article, the manager of the mall claimed there is a banned list but there's no evidence Moore was ever on it.

A police officer was quoted as claiming Moore was banned from the mall, but declined to comment when contacted by the New Yorker.

)Oh, Swingline, the woman "readily admitted" she wrote in part of the quote she attributed to Moore, AFTER she was caught in the lie. )

Every other allegation in the article regarding the banning was hearsay, often triple hearsay, and not one statement would be admissible in a court of law. Better read the article carefully and with comprehension.

The People of Alabama, people who know him and his character, say you are wrong.

Really, really wrong. Like pants-on-fire wrong. "Wrong" like what the iceberg said to the captain of the Titanic. Hilariously, knee-slapping wrong.

How does that feel when a whole gaggle of people take time out of their day to crush your dreams?

**aj3647** · December-19-17, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by 3WC

ABetterDetroit: Thanks for posting the link to the New Yorker article.

According to the article, the manager of the mall claimed there is a banned list but there's no evidence Moore was ever on it.

A police officer was quoted as claiming Moore was banned from the mall, but declined to comment when contacted by the New Yorker.

)Oh, Swingline, the woman "readily admitted" she wrote in part of the quote she attributed to Moore, AFTER she was caught in the lie. )

Every other allegation in the article regarding the banning was hearsay, often triple hearsay, and not one statement would be admissible in a court of law. Better read the article carefully and with comprehension.

This police officer, who gave an account on-air to MSNBC?

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...-cheerleaders/

I'm not sure what relevance "declining comment to the New Yorker" has on anything. I guess it doesn't count if it's not in the New Yorker?

As for your false claim that Beverly Young "readily admitted she wrote in part of the quote she attributed to Moore," that is a gross mischaracterization.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/36...rgery-headline

She admitted that she wrote the inscription beneath Moore's signature, which listed the date and the location where they met [[12-22-77, Olde Hickory House). She did NOT admit to writing either the quote or the signature above it. This makes sense as both Moore's inscription and signature are written in cursive, whereas the text beneath Moore's signature is written in non-cursive block text. The signature also matches Roy Moore's signature from publicly-available documents. So either Beverly Young is a master forger, or Moore wrote in her yearbook.

Even if Beverly Young was lying about everything, she was just one of EIGHT women accusing Roy Moore of essentially the same thing [[preying on high school girls as 32-year old assistant district attorney). And really, if you want to chalk everything up to "heresy", how does that explain the dozens of individuals who essentially said it was common knowledge in the rumor mill in the early 80's that Roy Moore trolled for high school girls? Was it all part of some Soros-funded plot to destroy the reputation of a 32-year old assistant district attorney, knowing that 30 years later he would run for Senate? Did the Deep State go back in time 35 years to start these rumors amongst the people of Gadsden Alabama? Why would those rumors have even existed 35 years ago if this whole story is a fictional plot to destroy Roy Moore's Senate run in 2017?

Shall we next dive into the various "defenses" offered by Roy Moore and his spokespeople/lawyers, which are extremely telling in their own right? My favorite was when his lawyer argued on TV that adult men coupling with teenage girls was perfectly acceptable in some other cultures so what's the big deal? Or when Roy Moore argued that he never dated a girl without her parents' consent [[which is totally something you get when you're dating age-appropriate adult women). That's just the tip of the iceberg of the downright creepy defenses that come from Team Moore.

**Hypestyles** · December-19-17, 08:44 PM

........ so will there be open debates for all the people interested in the 13th district seat? I hope that the candidates can get their messaging out and are willing to be forthright on topics of important to people who live here.

**Wesley Mouch** · December-20-17, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by aj3647

It was actually 46%, not 49%.

Yeah, whatever. I just wanted to concede that point. The percentage is irrelevant, as its only of people who voted. If the election were not state-by-state, turnout in NY and CA might have been different. Republicans there have little incentive to vote for president. Doesn't matter. President is decided by electoral college, not the national vote. And football is decided by goals, not total ball possession time.

Originally Posted by aj3647

I'm just curious what, if anything would be a deal-breaker for you. Is there anything Trump could have said or done that would have made you not vote for him? Trump once said he could shoot someone to death in the middle of the street and his supporters would still love him and he was right. I don't think there is anything this man could do that people like you wouldn't rationalize away.

'People like me' can despise Trump, yet see that he is better for the country than Hillary would have been.

I almost voted for Hillary. In spite of her public position on the TPP, I think she would have supported international trade. Trade's the best thing for the US and the poor around the world. [[And yes, we need protection for those displaced of course -- but overall, trade benefits everyone immensely. Its why the world's standard of living is dramatically better now than ever.)

Originally Posted by aj3647

Hypothetical: Trump calls a black person the n-word tomorrow, do you still support him?

I abhor litmus tests. And hypotheticals seldom add value to a debate. And I do not 'support' Trump. Yet....

I don't judge based on any single action. For the President, the decision is best made by the voters. True for Trump. True for Franken. True for Conyers. True for Moore. Moore went down, which I applaud. And it was done the best way. Not by an angry mob, but by his voters. Bravo.